Julie Bindel ‘worked alongside’ Keir Starmer when he was Director of Public Prosecutions, head of the Crown Prosecution Service

/ Mike Buchanan

Yesterday we posted a piece about some of the content of the Labour party’s election manifesto, which includes a plan to ‘fast-track’ rape cases through ‘specialist’ rape courts which will inevitably condemn even more innocent men to lengthy jail terms than at present. The stated intention is to increase the number of convictions. We expect Keir Starmer to seek to introduce juryless rape courts to deliver this, with feminist-compliant judges. Not long ago the Scottish judiciary refused the Scottish government’s demand that such courts were introduced.

Starmer was the Director of Public Prosecutions (head of the Crown Prosecution Service) over 2008-13. In an article for the Daily Mail in 2022, Julie Bindel wrote that she had ‘worked alongside’ Keir Starmer when he was the DPP. Our blog piece on the matter is here.

—————————-

If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.

Our YouTube channel is here, our Facebook channel here, our Twitter channel here.

If everyone who reads this gives us £5.00 – or even better, £5.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. You can support our work by making a donation here.

4 thoughts on “Julie Bindel ‘worked alongside’ Keir Starmer when he was Director of Public Prosecutions, head of the Crown Prosecution Service”

  1. Good luck Kier, particularly as you have already been judicially rebuked for witholding evidence that exonerated innocent men that were arguably subject to crimes against humanity by the CPS (which Keir was in charge of).

    International Criminal Court Act 2001

    51Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes

    (1)It is an offence against the law of England and Wales for a person to commit … a crime against humanity … .

    (2)This section applies to acts committed—

    (a)in England or Wales, or

    (b)outside the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom national, a United Kingdom resident or a person subject to UK service jurisdiction.

    Like

    Reply

    • He will not need luck, just a majority in the house of commons. And he faced no consequence for implementing the practices that led to the regime that his successor got censured for. And she merely got her Damehood delayed by a year. The truth is that the opposition is most likely to come from the Bar Association, as happened in Scotland. In the latter case there is still a plan to implement the scheme after the election. The Scottish ationalists being a minority Gov. in Scotland (having fallen out with the Greens who are enthusiastic feminists) will want a good showing at the national elecction to give them confidence their grip is still strong enough.

      Like

      Reply

      • Thanks for your opinion.

        Agree to disagree.

        There’s zero chance they aren’t getting into serious trouble in the next 20 years under the ICC Act 2001.

        The risk is multifactorial and from multiple sources. But that’s their problem.

        It’s just a question of when, not if.

        With all due respect, the matter can be dealt with under universal jurisdiction, so even in the unlikely event he still had a majority in the house of commons decades from now, that isn’t going to help the perpetrators.

        Like Jordan Peterson said fairly recently, intelligence and wisdom aren’t the same thing. Like Gregory Bateson said, lack of systemic wisdom is always punished.

        Like

  2. In their quest to eradicate the Patriarchy, they are functionally ‘Patriarchy Courts’ enforcing the Patriarchy Laws (same mindset as the old Corn Laws).

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment